S.K. Golam Lalchand v. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes & Ors. (2024)
Facts
- The case deals with a case of a property at 100/3 Carry Road, Howrah, where two brothers, Sita Ram and Salik Ram, had purchased the property in 1959 and were co-owners. Upon their respective deaths, their heirs made conflicting claims regarding the ownership and subsequent sale of the property.
- The death of Sita Ram and Salik Ram, their legal heirs started laying their claims over the property. Brij Mohan, the son of Sita Ram, made a Sale Deed on 19th May, 2006 in which he sold the whole property to S.K. Golam Lalchand.
- However, Nandu Lal, on behalf of the heirs of Salik Ram, objected to the sale. He claimed that Brij Mohan did not have the absolute right to sell the entire property since the property was still undivided among the co-owners.
- As a reaction, Nandu Lal filed Title Suit No. 212/2006 before the Trial Court and sought a declaration that the Sale Deed executed by Brij Mohan was invalid and also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining Golam Lalchand from claiming any rights or possession over the property.
- The Trial Court dismissed Nandu Lal's suit, holding that there was no evidence of possession and other relevant factors. The judgment was appealed, and the case ultimately came to the Supreme Court for further decision.
Issues
1. Whether Brij Mohan, as the heir of Sita Ram, had the right to sell the entire property without the consent of other co-owners, more so Salik Ram's heirs.
2. Whether the Sale Deed executed by Brij Mohan was wholly valid in law, as the property was not partitioned and Brij Mohan could not claim exclusive ownership of the whole property.
3. Whether Brij Mohan's act of selling the property was legally valid under the principles of co-ownership, particularly in the absence of a formal partition of the property.
Judgment
- The Court held that Brij Mohan had no exclusive right of ownership over the entire property as there was no evidence that Salik Ram had given his share to Sita Ram, nor was there any evidence that Sita Ram's daughters had relinquished their share. As the property remained undivided, Brij Mohan was not entitled to transfer the entire property.
- The Sale Deed made by Brij Mohan was declared void as regards the whole property. A co-owner can only sell his undivided share in the property and not the entire property unless he is a sole owner or the property has been formally partitioned, under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
- On the other hand, on the question of law, the Court held that a co-owner cannot transfer the whole property without ascertaining and demarcating their share. This principle ensures that the rights of all the co-owners are respected, and no one can unilaterally dispose of any property jointly owned without their mutual agreement or partition.
- The Court decreed a permanent injunction in favor of Nandu Lal, restraining Golam Lalchand from taking possession of, or disturbing the possession of, the property till such time a formal partition was carried out. The injunction was granted to prevent Golam Lalchand from exercising rights over the whole property to the prejudice of the co-owner's rights.
- The Court observed that while Golam Lalchand cannot claim ownership in the property because the Sale Deed is defective, he does not go remedy less. In fact, it clarified that he can file a partition suit on the property or if required, get compensation from Brij Mohan for his share in the property. The Court left a window open in case Golam Lalchand went for appropriate judicial redress as far as the partition was concerned, provided due regard was had to the co-owner's rights.
